Human caused greenhouse gas pollution is heating the Earth and causing the planet’s polar ice caps and other glacial ice to melt. This, along with simply heating the ocean, has caused measurable sea level rise. Even more worrisome is this: the current elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere was associated in the past with sea levels several meters higher than they are today. Even if we slow down Carbon pollution very quickly, we can expect sea levels to be at least 8 meters higher, eventually. How soon? Nobody knows, nobody can give you a time frame on this because the rate of melting of the major glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic is hard to measure. All we know for sure is that the rate of melting is speeding up, and that in the past, the current level of atmospheric CO2 has typically caused a very large amount of melting.
Bangladesh is low country. A very large percentage of the country is on the Bangladesh Plain, which is almost entirely below 10 meters in elevation. This is where a large portion of the population in that country lives, and where a large portion of the food is grown. The greenhouse gas pollution we have caused so far is sufficient to virtually guarantee that Bangladesh will become a very small country over the next generation or two. Much sooner than that, though, sea level rise in the region will affect, and is already affecting, freshwater reserves. We expect the largest tropical storms to become larger and more intense as an effect of human caused global warming. Sea level rise makes the storm surges from those events worse. So of immediate concern and becoming more of a problem every year is the threat of deadly and damaging tropical storms exacerbated by warming of the seas and increased sea levels.
The deadliest tropical cyclone on record occurred in Bangladesh; that was the Great Bhola Cyclone of 1970, which killed up to one half of a million people. The second deadliest cyclone known hit Bangladesh and India in great antiquity. Eight of the ten deadliest known tropical cyclones hit the region. So, tropical cyclones are already a problem in Bangladesh, and sea level rise and increased cyclone strength are going to make that much much worse.
Bjørn Lomborg, in a recent interview, told Bangladesh, the country, not to worry too much about global warming, and instead, to focus on other problems. He equated concern over sea level rise in a country where sea level rise is a very significant problem with immorality. While Lomborg may be correct to point out the obvious – that Bangladesh has a lot of problems in public health and other areas to worry about – he is wrong to suggest that sea level rise in that low lying country can be addressed just as the Dutch have managed the sea in The Netherlands.
Lomborg seems to not know much about sea level rise. He once noted that sea level rise had stopped, or even decreased, by referring to a single year’s worth of data (see graphic above). That statement and his suggestion that sea level rise should be a low priority in a country that may be the most threatened by sea level rise in the world (aside from island nations) is reminiscent of a statement by J.R. Spradley, a delegate at an international conference on climate change in 1990, speaking about sea level rise in Bangladesh. He was quoted in the Washington Post as saying “The situation is not a disaster; it is merely a change. The area won’t have disappeared; it will just be underwater. Where you now have cows, you will have fish.” (Washington Post, December 30th, 1990.)
Part of Lomborg’s argument is typical for him. He generates a straw man by equating concern over climate change with concern over a meteor about to smash into the earth. In the interview he said,
Projecting scary scenarios are probably unhealthy to deal with real issues. Now, if there was a meteor hurtling towards earth, we should tell people. If there was really something destroying the earth we should definitely be telling people and doing something about it. My point is if you, for instance, look at climate change, it is often portrayed as the end of the world. But if you look at for instance the UN climate panel, they tell us by about 2070 the total cost of global warming is going to be somewhere between 0.2 and 2% of the GDP. And that emphasises what I am trying to say - global warming is real, it is a problem, it is something we should fix, but it’s not the end of the world.
The problem with this is that sea level rise is, essentially, the end of the world, if you are Bangladesh.
The most troubling part of Lomborg’s statements is that he equates the Netherlands with Bangladesh. The Netherlands is about 25% below sea level, but the sea is kept back by dikes. Other than their cheese, chocolate, love of splitting the restaurant tab, this is probably what the Dutch are most known for. Indeed Dutch engineers were drafted into managing water related problems around the world for centuries. So maybe the Dutch can help Bangladesh keep the Indian Ocean off it’s turf when that ocean is 8 meters above the present level. Lomborg looks to the Dutch to do just this:
… how much of a problem is [sea level rise in Bangladesh]? The Dutch has shown us 200 years ago, you can handle sea level rise fairly, easily and cheaply, you can do the same thing here and you will do the same thing here. Remember when people say, global warming is a big problem and we need to put a wind turbine here - any amount of wind turbine or solar panels that we are going to put in the next 50 years, are going to have absolutely no impact on the sea level rise that towards the end of the century. They may make a tiny difference towards the 22nd century, but if want to do anything about sea level rise, it’s all about adaptation. Globally there seems to be actually less ferocious hurricanes, one measure is accumulated cyclone energy, which is sort of a good global estimate and it’s actually been at some of the lowest levels since we started monitoring in the 1970s. There is a theoretical argument that you will see slightly fewer but slightly stronger hurricanes towards the end of the century. Again, this is not by any means the end of Bangladesh.”
The Netherlands is about 41,543 square kilometers in size with about 17% of that reclaimed from the sea, this and other land kept dry by dikes. Bangladesh is about 147,570 square kilometers. The Netherlands does not get tropical cyclones very often. Bangladesh gets the worst of them. There are geological differences between the regions that matter as well. Bangladesh is, essentially, a giant delta (I oversimplify slightly) which means that part of is is sinking all the time even while the sea level goes up. Flooding along rivers becomes a big problem with sea level rise. Both regions have rivers. Bangladesh, however, is a country made out of rivers, and among them is the Ganges, which is the world’s third largest river by discharge. Bangladesh probably has more problems with flooding than any other nation. In 1988, 75% of the entire country of Bangladesh was covered by a flood.
It is estimated that a 1 meter rise in sea level would take about 17.5%, or 25,000 square kilometers, of Bangladesh. I’m a little unsure of that estimate (and others I’ve seen) because different researchers count or don’t count large regions of the country that are already flooded by the sea. Another estimate gives 16% of the land to the sea with a 1.5 meter sea level rise. (You can explore various scenarios here if you like.) In any event, an 8 meter rise in sea level, which is expected long term, would take a very large part of the country, displace most of the population, and destroy most of the agricultural land. In case it is not obvious, let me note that as sea level rise threatens Bangladesh, it also threatens The Netherlands, which might keep the Dutch rather busy in their own homelands.
It is also important to note that sea level does not treat all coastlines equally. Some areas are being affected more than others. A report in CBS news recently noted, “Seas are rising more than twice as fast as the global average here in the Sundarbans, a low-lying delta region of about 200 islands in the Bay of Bengal where some 13 million impoverished Indians and Bangladeshis live. Tens of thousands … have already been left homeless, and scientists predict much of the Sundarbans could be underwater in 15 to 25 years.”
The Dutch reclaimed so much of the sea, and developed defenses against storm surges and flooding, over a period of centuries. During much of this time, The Netherlands was a major player in the European economic theater, acting as a center during the development of the world economic and colonial systems of the 17th and 18th centuries. To suggest that somehow Bangladesh can do what the Dutch did while the entire world is also busy adapting to sea level rise is absurd.
Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has done quite a bit of research on the potential effects of sea level rise, focusing on California (see, for example, Heberger M, Cooley H, Herrera P, Gleick P, Moore E (2009) The impacts of sea level rise on the California coast. California Climate Change Center, Sacramento, California. Paper CEC–500–2009–024-F). I asked him what he felt about the Lomborg interview. He said, “So a rich Dane tells poor Bangladeshis to stop whining and just ‘handle’ sea level rise, because that’s what the rich countries do? The reality, of course, is that even in rich countries, the poor will suffer most from sea-level rise. In our analysis of the risks to California from even modest SLR over the coming decades, nearly 500,000 people – disproportionately communities of color and low-income people – will be affected. And the cost of protecting them far exceeds the money available for coastal protection.”
There is also an absurdity to Lomborg’s assertion that we (our species) and Bangladesh (the country) should put off the global project of keeping the Carbon in the ground. We don’t know how long it takes for a warming planet to melt polar glaciers, but we do know that there is a pretty well established relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature, and between global temperature and sea levels. We know this from looking at numerous case studies from the past. It turns out that the relationship, ultimately, between CO2 levels and sea level rise is sigmoidal. Below about 400ppm, as CO2 levels rise, sea levels rise rapidly. Then, between about 400ppm and 650ppm, they rise more slowly, then above that level, the rate increases again.
Now, I want to pause for a second and clarify a very important point. We are now at 400ppm. This does not mean that sea levels will start to rise slowly. The expected sea level stand for 400ppm is probably close to 8 meters above the current level. In other words, the adjustment of sea level to CO2 that we expect should be very rapid, as fast as it generally goes (or nearly so) over coming decades. Once that level is reached, and CO2 continues to increase (and it will), then there may be a slowing down as we approach but have not yet reached about 650ppm.
So, what is absurd about Lomborg’s assertion? If we forestall efforts to keep the carbon in the ground for now, we will power through that range of decreased (but continuing) ultimate increase in sea level rise between the 400 and 650 levels of CO2, and nearly guarantee returning to the higher rate, and ultimately, seeing sea level rises in the tens of meters in coming centuries.
In his interview, as well as in a brief Twitter exchange we had, Lomborg made another error, one we often seen made by lesser informed people engaged in the climate or energy conversations. Lomborg seems to think that there is a fixed amount and class of resources and that one problem must be addressed at a time. But that is not how it works. First, there are resources primarily available for one thing such as public health, while other resources may be more generally applied. Also, we can in fact address more than one problem at once. I asked Professor Michael Mann, climate scientist, what he thought about Lomborg’s interview, and he told me, “Bjorn Lomborg is a master of the false choice, often claiming that dealing with climate change will somehow detract from our ability to deal with other societal problems. In reality, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can and must work on solving numerous societal problems. In reality, climate change exacerbates most of those problems. It is a threat multiplier. Lomborg conveniently ignores that!”
Speaking of the same problem, Peter Gleick told me, “Lomborg’s classic argument that other problems like disease are far more important than climate change and sea-level rise is a common Lomborgian false dilemma. Society can, regularly does, and must tackle multiple problems at once. This is like saying that because a patient has a broken arm the doctors shouldn’t treat her life-threatening pneumonia. Patently nonsense.”
I would add that increased flooding, decreased food supply, the mass exodus of people from inundated regions, etc. will create far more disease and starvation related public health problems than Bangladesh has at the moment. Forestalling or reducing the extent of this sort of disaster has to be a high priority.
Which brings us to the question of development. Bangladesh, like so many other countries, is likely to become more and more electric over time as it develops. Lomborg seems to want that to happen with the use of fossil fuels rather than clean energy sources. But, one of the obstacles to switching from fossil Carbon based energy to clean energy in the developed world is that our infrastructure is already set up to exploit mainly fossil Carbon based sources. In nations or regions where the use of energy is being developed every effort should be made to ensure this is done with clean energy. That is independent of any local or regional issues with sea level rise. This is what makes sense and this is what we have to do.
Lomborg is often wrong. I’ve noted this before (see: Are electric cars any good? Lomborg says no, but he’s wrong. and Bjørn Lomborg WSJ Op Ed Is Stunningly Wrong). Climate Hawks critiques Lomborg’s Bangladesh strategy here noting issues I did not cover above. Scientific American published a stunning takedown of Lomborg’s book here. Recently, Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education expanded on that critique in a note about the support of Lomborg’s approach by the anti-science Discovery Intitute.
And in his statements on Bangladesh, he is wrong again.
ADDED: I'm adding a note to address, collectively and once, a number of comments that have been posted (some moderated) about scales of time.
This post is not about reconciling geological time with day to day time. I make as an assumption, in dealing with sea level rise, the idea that all recent estimates of polar glacial melt are at best minima, and fail to get at the real problem. I feel this is true because of my bias towards paleoclimate. I see in the ancient record changes in sea level stand that seem to occur over time periods that don't look like a few mm a year of melting. I may be wrong, but the paleo record is pretty hard data while the melt estimates are a very preliminary stab at a very large problem that we are only starting to get a handle on.
This is not the point of the present post, but several commenters, who generally deny the importance of climate change and would prefer that we do nothing about it, seem to feel a) it does matters if large proportions of Bangladesh or other low lying countries are obliterated in 30 years or 300 years. The people who will be affected ten instead of 2 generations from now don't matter; b) the ultimate multi meter rise in sea level, which will happen, is beyond their level of credulity, so they argue from that position that therefore a one meter rise in a region that is mostly about one meter above sea level does not matter; and c) feel that our ignorance of how to reconcile geological time scales of climate change in paleoclimate (mostly) is somehow evidence that there is not change; d) as usual, failure to accept the muddled yammering that arises from these starting points constitutes a lack of true scientific rational thinking, or a liberal bias, or some other such hogwash.
There is a handful of other annoyances that come with this group of deniers, but that's mainly it. So, now, the questions you have had, are having now, or may have in the future, have been address in this area.
If you want a higher resolution copy of the graphic at the top of this post, click through to HERE then click on the graphic.
Other posts of interest:
Also of interest: In Search of Sungudogo: A novel of adventure and mystery, set in the Congo.
- Log in to post comments
Also, bedrock in the Netherlands is very close to the surface because the glaciers scoured all of the soil and sediments away. That makes dikes to hold back the sea a lot easier.
The Rhine averages 2,300 m3/s discharge, the Ganges is 38,000 m3/s.
David, I mentioned "Geological differences" and was going to mention the bedrock thing, but I kind of ran out of steam. But you are absolutely correct. Thanks for the numbers comparing the Rhine and Ganges. I imagine if you look at maximum discharge the difference would be even more dramatic!
Something's rotten in Denmark, methinks...
The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank
"IWF funders include the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, controlled by Charles Koch, and Donors Trust, a fund for conservative philanthropists that has pushed millions into organisations promoting climate science denial and fighting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Another problem is that Bangladesh is a much larger country that Netherlands and has a much lower GDP per person. This means that if they built retaining walls, there will be a devastating loss of lives. On the other hand Bangladesh is also situated closer to the equator where there are more frequent and more powerful tropical storms. This will mean that the that the retaining walls will have to be able to withstand more than those in Netherlands as well as having to be longer. The cost of this would really hurt the 3rd would country of Bangladesh
According to PSMSL, tide gauges on the coast of Bangladesh show no increase in sea level for 70 years.
Plalmon, there has been a 0.5 meter rise in sea level in the Bay of Bangal over the last century. Locally in Bangladesh the situation is very complex because of sediment influx. You can't just look at some random gauge. When I looked at the same measuring stations you pointed to it was easy to find sea level rising.
Plalmon, there has been a 0.5 meter rise in sea level in the Bay of Bangal over the last century. Locally in Bangladesh the situation is very complex because of sediment influx. You can't just look at some random gauge.
Simply being in such a large river delta is going to make building seawalls a hard problem. Two major rivers converge on that delta, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra (I don't know if the discharge rate quoted above is for the Ganges alone or both rivers combined). And of course river flow rates in that part of the world have a strong seasonal variation due to the monsoon. It will be difficult to build dikes that both keep storm surges out and allow monsoon season discharges to reach the ocean. The good news is that the wet monsoon inhibits tropical cyclone formation in the Bay of Bengal (I think this is a wind shear effect, but I'm not an expert). Historically, this basin has a tropical cyclone season from March to May, and another from September to November. However, it takes some time for the monsoon seasonal flows to reach the ocean, so if a tropical cyclone should hit at the same time as those seasonal flows….
In addition to not getting tropical cyclones, the Netherlands doesn't have a monsoon season. Its rainfall is more evenly distributed over the year. Some of those winter storms can be nasty, though.
Bjorn Lomborg is just being compassionate:
Instead of allowing Bangladesh to drown in the salt water of rising seas, he wants them to build dikes around the country...
...so that they can all drown in the fresh water of the Ganges river as it fills up behind the dikes.
Hello Greg, did you read my post, or you are suffering from ''truth phobia'' as the rest of the Warmist?! Why the deafening silence Greg? Did you realized that: ''climatology'' is not a science, but confusing the public that: freak weather events have something to do with the phony global warming!
If ''shonky climatologist'' were interested in better climate - they would have insisted to build new dams and save stormwater, to improve the climate on many places where is bad climate. instead, the Marxist are against dams... because only misery, floods and droughts make them happy... What you think about my ''real proofs'' Greg, don't be coward, face the truth - because the truth will haunt you - until the whole public is informed...
You don't need Bjorn Lomborg to tell you about sea-rising or falling. By movement of tectonic plates and buckling - some places is sinking / others raising. We should be grateful, because: otherwise erosion would have eroded all dry land into the sea - there is enough water to cover by 2km of water on the top of all land. Erosion puts lots of silt into the sea from the land. only 1m3 of silt lifts the sealevel on 1km2 by 1mm. Is that too complicated for you Greg?!
Dams save silt - only 1m3 saved water in new dam -> lowers the sealevel on 1km2 by 1mm! unfortunately, the Warmist are against new dams; because dams prevent floods and droughts, DAMS IMPROVE THE CLIMATE!!!
Slow geological processes are not relevant to the sea level rise caused by
- thermal expansion in the oceans
- melting of land-based ice
Stefan you need to check your arithmetic before you continue to embarrass yourself. Just for starters.
Unless you are a Poe, in which case, well played sir.
G'day Craig; did you ever calculated: how much silt is washed into the sea by all the rives every year + dust blown into the sea? that's all one way street, but not suitable for scaring...
Craig, ice needs to get to 1C, to ''start'' melting! The ''science'' telling that in the past polar caps melted, is wrong! If you read my post, will tell you this::: ICE FREE POLAR CAPS CRAP MISLEADING: on the polar caps the temp is minus -75C (-103F); for both polar caps to melt, the planet’s temp needs to warm up by 76C … cool – if the planet warmed by 76C and ad another 37C (98F)which is today in the tropics and subtropics 76 + 37 = 113C which is (235,8F). 113C is 13C above the water BOILING point (23,8F ABOVE WATER BOILING POINT)… From bacteria, trees, grass, animals and birds; all of them have water in their body = everything would have being cooked and sterilized in less than 10 minutes in the tropics and subtropics!!! Do you believe that 60% of the planet got sterilized?! ”Pagan belief s” which are the ”Skeptic’s” gospel AND the Warmist used those same pagan beliefs, to create their LIE that is going to be warmer planet in 100 years, is 100% WRONG!On 70C everything gets Pasteurized / killed, dead, kaput in 10 minutes, 113C is another 43C on top of that!
read the post and you will see all the proofs you need: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
[I'm not even going to address this yammering, but I do have a rule against comments linking out to anti-science sites, so I' changed the link to a more useful site. -gtl ]
crispy, if you've ever had the "experience" of browsing through his web blog... Well, let's put it this way: It's damn hard to believe that a Poe would go to SUCH incredible lengths... Without, say, a long hiatus from their bipolar meds, or maybe a very boring stretch in solitary with naught but a (non-networked) laptop to pass the time... In those cases, embarrassment doesn't come easy.
Thanks Greg, for proving me correct Silencing the truth is Marxist doctrine. I grew up east of the Iron Curtain - used to it... no Glasnost / openness = guillotining the truth... the truth will come from the bottom up / from the street. - already 360 people read that post that you are scared from. by!
Technically speaking, that actually occurred in East Pakistan -before Bangladesh became independent following its war with West Pakistan the following year. I wonder what might've been had Mahatma Gandhi's original vision for a united India incl. Pakistan and Bangladesh come true instead of Jinnah's separatist dream of partition and a Muslim state.
You've got an excellent list of some of the major and rather obvious differences here but I'm rather surprised you left out on huge one - population. Bangladesh is the world's 8th most populous nation with over 160 million people whereas the Netherlands has a mere 17 million or so people and is the 63rd most populous nation in the world. The Netherlands also has a shrinking population with less births than deaths and is wealthy whereas the Bangladeshi population is still climbing with a higher fertility rate. (Figures from wikipedia.)
So, yeah, some pretty significant differences there to add to the list! (Hope this is helpful for y'all and not too pedantic and picky of me.)
One other big factor springs to mind here - how the flow of the rivers such as the Ganges and Brahmaputra will change with reduced ice pack and snow in the Himalayas. As the glaciers there melt (& despite the "glaciergate" claims they will and are melting more) and the snowpack shrinks that's bound to change the flow rate in the rivers and into Bangladesh isn't it?
Seems logical to think that's going to mean more extreme flooding earlier in the season then reduced flows in summer and increased evapouration exacerbated by increased heat waves, droughts and the effects of erosion as well as sea level rise. I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the case. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and elaborate on this folks.)
Thus Lomborg here seems to be really willfully failing to grasp the reality of what Global Overheating means for Bangladesh along with so much of the rest of the planet.
Yeah, like that's not a disaster if you happen to be a dairy farmer and only know how to make a living that way? That's not a disaster if your home is underwater and your family are also left swimming with the fishes or turned into refugees? What a revealingly callous, thoughtless and stupid thing to say!
Good to see you getting advice from upstanding citizens--or self-confessed felons, whatever.
And I see that you show that nine of the ten greatest storms in history pre-date our current Panic Period regarding Xtreme Weather.
And it's really cooool to see you twist Lomborg's position, which is that we should be helping Bangladeshi's become more resilient into the stock 'doesn't care about the poor' schtick.
I feel as if I have entered the Fact Free Zone.
During the 20th century, the sea level as risen on average 10-20 centimeters around the world. The IPCC predicts that by 2050 it would have risen by the same amount. At the present Bangladesh need to plan for the future because it will become a problem, they will also have to take into consideration the ganges river as one of the top priorities and it also poses a huge threat. The main focus for the moment would have to be protecting Bangladesh from the ever increasing number of devastating storms and their powerful storm surges that can take away houses and lives from an already struggling country.
@Thomas Fuller :
Huh? What are you talking about there? Are you actually implying that there was something to the whole repeatedly and long since debunked "climategate" manufactoroversy? Really? If so, then you are totally wrong - see :
Especially the verdict at the 3 minute 50 second or so mark.
( Source : 'Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap' by Greenman3610. The other two clips on "the hacked emails and that manufactroversy plus the rest of his series is also well worth watching.)
Out of morbid curiosity, what dates exactly would you ascribe to this supposed "panic" period? Scientists have known about Climate change due to Carbon dioxide from 1896 when Svante Arrhenius first realised that CO2 emissions would cause global temperatures to rise. Scientists have been talking about it as an issue since the 1950's and considerable attention to it as an actual serious threat was prominent in the media and scientific communities back in the 1970s.
Entered or are trying to create in your comments? Because what part of this actual quote :
“The situation is not a disaster; it is merely a change. The area won’t have disappeared; it will just be underwater. Where you now have cows, you will have fish.” – Lomborg as quoted in the Opening Post.
Shows any care for the poor exactly or puts it in a context where its empathetic to the millions of Bangladeshi lives afflicted by sea level rise as opposed to utterly indifferent even hostile to them?
"Craig, ice needs to get to 1C, to ”start” melting!'
stephanthedenier, please look up the word "sublimation" in the dictionary...
Please note that there are TWO definitions...
A lot of this seems really misleading to me. To say that "Bangladesh will become a very small country over the next generation or two" (which normally means something like 20 to 40 years). To talk seriously about 8-meter sea-level rise. Look at the graph at the top of this post -- it shows sea level rising at a rate of about a foot per century. How long will it take to rise 8 meters at that rate? Even if the rate goes up, we're not going to see 8 meters of rise in less than centuries.
Mike, I am not saying that it will take 30 years to reach 8 meters of sea lefel rise. I did not go into detail here, but provided links. If you are sincerely interested you could go and look into it. Start by comparing maps of where food is grown and wjere people live, etc, at one, two, and three meters.
Astrostevo, amnesia may be becoming more prevalent. The felon I was referring to was Peter Gleick.
Thomas, you and your libel are banned. -gtl
The crucial difference between Bangladesh in 2015 and the Netherlands in 1850 (when it started its modern dike building program) is that the Netherlands had a competent government that cared whereas Bangladesh has not.
When was he convicted? Just askin'.
"Astrostevo, amnesia may be becoming more prevalent. The felon I was referring to was Peter Gleick."
I'm sure that description was a surprise to everyone since, you kno it's a complete load of bull crap on your part.
Here's something that's not a surprise to anyone reading this: you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The situation is not solved by CO2 emissions cut!
See levels are changing on a daily basis more than on a yearly.
Satellites cant be trusted.
Focus on personal health is a better solution.
And shelter from flood on elevated pads.
Re. sea level rise:
"Expected human-caused sea level rise is controversial in part because predictions focus on sea level at a specific time, 2100. Sea level on a given date is inherently difficult to predict, as it depends on how rapidly non-linear ice sheet disintegration begins. Focus on a single date also encourages people to take the estimated result as an indication of what humanity faces, thus failing to emphasize that the likely rate of sea level rise immediately after 2100 will be much larger than within the 21st century, especially if CO2 emissions continue to increase.
Recent estimates of sea level rise by 2100 have been of the order of 1 m [95–96], which is higher than earlier assessments , but these estimates still in part assume linear relations between warming and sea level rise. It has been argued [97–98] that continued business-as-usual CO2 emissions are likely to spur a nonlinear response with multi-meter sea level rise this century."
Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature
except for RSS.
Fixed it for you.
Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus was supported by the right wing government led by Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The support was discontinued by the present government. Lomborg expressed surprise at the discontinuation, and claimed that the 9 million kroner appropriation could save Denmark 175 billion kroner by avoiding investments in a wrongheaded climate policy.
(“Men vi prøver at rådgive regeringen om at lade være med at lave en fejlagtig klimapolitik, hvor man kan komme til at spilde 175 milliarder kroner.”
I think that this should give us some idea of the man's view of his own importance and his ignorance of the cumulative consequences of climate change. I should add that Denmark is a low lying state consisting of a peninsula and numerous islands. It is vulnerable to sea level rise and has in recent years been hit by severe storms and downpours, most recently back to back storms in January.
If you examine Lomborg's statements, you'll find that every one supports the interests of the fossil fuel industries.
(Some other things the Dutch are noted for: Rembrandt, Vermeer, the great tulip bubble. On the other hand, while the Dutch are known for their cocoa (Dutch process), other countries are more associated with good chocolate.)
So Bangladesh has had it.
This post is rank dishonesty. What Lomberg actually said, in the linked interview, was that global warming is a problem, and it needs to be addressed, but it's not the end of the world; that there's no likelihood of stopping sea level rise, so Bangladesh's best course is adaptation; and that trying to guilt-trip developed nations into Bangladesh with wind turbines and solar panels won't help the country at all.
The fact that the author can't be bothered to address Lomberg's comments honestly does help convince that Lomberg is probably correct, though. Thanks for that data.
[Actually, I address Lomborg's comments, and I disagree with him. -gtl]
"We can expect sea levels to be at least 8 meters higher, eventually. How soon? Nobody knows"
Really nobody knows? You can't possibly give any guidelines at all because of the uncertainty here? Could be next week? Possibly in 100 years? You have no possible range of time?
[Correct. Nobody knows. Not next week!]
You are probably aware of the IPCC AR5, it is a good source for us who like to question science. It's probably not as good as a single PNAS study, but I use it anyway.
When I examine table 13.8 here is what I find for the year 2500:
Low emissions - 0.50m to 1.02m
Medium emissions - 0.18m to 2.32m
High emissions 1.51m to 6.63m
I'm thinking that the best available information we have says 8m is at least 500 years away and likely in the 1000's of years even if we somehow stayed at high emissions for 500 years (there isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to sustain this). We are currently on track for a medium emissions scenario if China keeps its recent commitments. 8m would be about 4000 years away at the current rate.
[One thing we know from the IPCC is that this is an area with huge uncertainty. The 8 meter level (see the citation, which is not a single PNAS paper but dozens of studies looked at in a meta study) does not relate to business as usual. The problem is that the best available information simply does not answer the questions, so deriving estimates from that is pointless. So, no, ther rest of your discussion is also pointless, unfortunately. I wish we knew more about this. -gtl ]
So in the worst case estimate of the worst case emissions scenario 8m would be about 600 years away, but more likely about 1000 years even at high emissions.
Low emissions would take approximately forever as the next ice age will occur first. Will we be able to achieve low emissions in the next 1000 years? I think so.
So lets call the range 600 years to millenniums with millenniums much more likely.
I'm sure someone is going to point out catastrophic ice sheet collapses and so forth. This is all pure speculation and is not mainstream (IPCC) science. It certainly doesn't fall under the purview of "We can expect".
"Recent estimates of sea level rise by 2100 have been of the order of 1 m [95–96]"
This is the top end range of the worst case emissions scenario RCP8.5. The median for high emissions is closer to 2 feet. See Table 13.5 AR5.
If we track a medium emission scenario, which is more likely (RCP8.5 has us burning coal at 10x the current rate in 2100) , then SLR should be around 0.5m.
We can all assert what scenario we predict will happen. If you want to assume the worst case range in the worst case scenario that is fine by me, but when you state the 1m number you should include the worst case assumption as part of it, or give a range if you want to accurately convey what the IPCC states.
By the way, 8 meters is not the worst case scenario at all.. That's only a partial melting of the ice caps.
One of the problems here is that we are dealing with a complex problem. I did convey that in the post. There are multiple time scales with multiple effects. Greenhouse gas pollution will result in warming, but it may take decades for (most of) the full extent of warming to be realized. That warming will melt ice caps. We have no idea how long that takes, but geologically speaking ,not long at all because we don't really see it happening in the ancient record. We see CO2 levels of a certain amount, and with that we get the temps and melt and thus SLR. Boom.
One thing we know about the current rate of melting is that every time we look the estimates go up. So taking a range of estimates and even saying that the upper end is valid is simply wrong. The upper end is probably a minimum for rate, but even that is pretty useless.
The other thing we know is that this has never been observed. If such melting, in the range of CO2 concentrations of 400-500ppm (the present and near future) had happened during the Pleistocene we'd have a chance of "seeing" it in the paleo record, but it didn't. At no time in the record, where we have sufficient resolution, have we seen change this fast.
Then, on top of that, we have the overall scale. One half meter would be devastating to Bangladesh. One meter would be worse. We don't need to think about 8 meters to be concerned. But in fact, the general range of CO2 we are in now is associated with such levels. So you can't ignore it.
The moral question here is this: Do you really want to say that devastation of the last where people live and grow food is OK if it is 100 years later than some other guy's estimate? That's bullshit.
I am perfectly OK with sticking to the IPCC and you can stick to the PNAS paper. I invite others to read both and come to their own conclusions.
The problem I think is how a reader would infer the term "eventually". It is unspoken that this is a geological time frame of centuries to millenniums. This is not what a layperson would typically assume from this reading.
You claim that the time frame is unknown as to be not possible to determine, but there is more uncertainty in the SLR 8m number as stated. In the year 2500 the IPCC range is 0.5m to 6.63m. So you take the maximum SLR, but reject the time frame entirely to carefully construct what could be a misleading statement.
Using your construct I could assert that "We expect sea levels to drop 400 feet, eventually". And they will, during the next ice age. Do you think that is misleading? I believe it is important to qualify these type of statements to convey the information as accurately as possible. For SLR, it is best to give:
1. A range of height changes
2. A time frame for these changes
3. The source of information.
4. If this is in conflict with the mainstream science, state it.
Does the above list look reasonable?
And yes, we absolutely have an idea how long sea level rise will take. It is currently at 1 inch per decade and changes to this rate take a long time according to previous observations. and models. The SLR rate is increasing by about 1mm / century as currently measured.
The IPCC is not expecting ice caps to melt any time soon, and has stated that both Greenland and the EAIS are expected to remain stable for at least 100's of years. They contribute about 1mm/year of SLR between them both. See AR5. "FAQ 13.2: Will the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets Contribute to Sea Level Change over the Rest of the Century?"
"The upper end is probably a minimum for rate" - This statement speaks for itself. See Figure 13.11 for how SLR rates evolve over time at different emissions scenarios. Also the IPCC SLR models are currently running 15% higher than observations, we are not tracking worst case, we are lower than the median. They expected a SLR rate of 3.7mm/year at this time.
If you want to state a worst case scenario, state it is as such. It is misleading to imply a worst case is the median or more likely scenario. If you disagree with the IPCC, that is fine by me. But they provide time frames, height ranges, and sources.
I have no comment on the morality of interpretation of SLR. I am mystified why there is so much push back from quoting almost verbatim from the IPCC AR5.
Tom, at this point, you are just yammering. Nobody will miss your effort to obscure the key points by fiegning confusion and setting up false arguments. Good effort, tho.
Greg, Tom Scharf's comments look perfectly reasonable to me. Exactly what I meant when I said a lot of the post was misleading. In your reply to me, you said you didn't expect 8 meters of sea-level rise in 30 years. So far, so good. I would further assert that 1 meter of sea-level rise is almost impossible in 30 years. The time scale for these kinds of changes is not decades but centuries. And don't say we have no idea. We do have an idea. Scientists have made estimates, and while of course there are uncertainties about the estimates, do you really expect the best scientific estimates to be off by orders of magnitude? Who's being anti-scientific now?
Mike your concerns are addressed in the post and I will not address them further in the comments. Nor will you. -gtl
NSDIC Serreze and the arctic death spiral! Summer ice to be gone by 2013.........problematic do you not think?
Just because it takes thousands of years to produce 8 metres of melt doesn't mean emissions have to stay high for 500 years. Melting is a phase lag process.
For the moment, yes.
However, recall that the Netherlands did not have a competent government that cared prior to 1849. (It did have plenty of flood disasters.)
Glen Michel, Mark Serreze is still on track with his artic death spiral. Summer ice gone by 2013 was not his prediction, he has said "within a few decades" in 2008, and by 2030 in 2007.
Perhaps Richard Tol can give us a history lesson on what exactly the Dutch government did in 1849?
@ Glen Michel :
No, not really.
You do realise that the rate of Arctic ice melting is still far exceeding the models right? See :
Especially the graph at around the two minutes and fifteen seconds mark there.
The Arctic sea ice actually melting faster than they predicted. I don't think we'll have to wait till 2020 before our Earth loses, first briefly then permanently its winter northern polar cap.
Does that not make you think even a little? Do the implications of that really not bother you?
Also a couple of other clips you and, well, everyone need to watch and think carefully about I reckon :
'Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2013' by Andy Lee Robinson. Powerful graphic thatclearly shows the difference.
'Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide, by CIRES & NOAA' which puts our current CO2 levels (now over 400ppm) in perspective. Perspective which should actually scare you if you have even the faintest appreciation of scale and time-span.
@29. (the now banned but maybe still lurking?) Thomas Fuller :
Well, it takes me just a few seconds to check wikipedia and find that Peter Gleick is in fact NOT a "felon" as you libelled him :
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
So its not exactly a case of "amnesia" so much as bizarre and erroneous fantasy on your part. If you are going to libel individuals as "felons" when they are not then not only are you being unethical and abusive but you also should not be surprised that no one knows who you are talking about.
Tom Scharf –
First, as this ties this comment to Lomborg:
“And then of course there are folks like the professional climate change down-player Björn Lomborg, who in an international newspaper commentary wrote that IPCC gives “a total estimate of 40-62 cm by century’s end” – and also fails to mention that the lower part of this range requires the kind of strong emissions reductions that Lomborg is so viciously fighting.”
The IPCC is a cumbersome, slow moving organization that has been designed to be conservative beyond what scientific circumspection justifies.
“In one case, we have a lot of mainstream science that says if human society keeps burning fossil fuels with abandon, considerable land ice could melt and the ocean could rise as much as three feet by the year 2100. We have some outlier science that says the problem could be quite a bit worse than that, with a maximum rise exceeding five feet.
The drafters of the report went with the lower numbers, choosing to treat the outlier science as not very credible.
In the second case, we have mainstream science that says if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, which is well on its way to happening, the long-term rise in the temperature of the earth will be at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, but more likely above 5 degrees. We have outlier science that says the rise could come in well below 3 degrees.
In this case, the drafters of the report lowered the bottom end in a range of temperatures for how much the earth could warm, treating the outlier science as credible.
Climate change skeptics often disparage these periodic reports from the United Nations, claiming that the panel writing them routinely stretches the boundaries of scientific evidence to make the problem look as dire as possible. So it is interesting to see that in these two important cases, the panel seems to be bending over backward to be scientifically conservative.”
“The range up to 98 cm is the IPCC’s “likely” range, i.e. the risk of exceeding 98 cm is considered to be 17%, and IPCC adds in the SPM that “several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century” could be added to this if a collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet is initiated. It is thus clear that a meter is not the upper limit.”
Already in 2012 NOAA wrote:
“Global sea level rise has been a persistent trend for decades. It is expected to continue beyond the end of this century, which will cause significant impacts in the United States. Scientists have very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) and no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.”
In fact, a number of more recent papers indicate that the “collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet” has been initiated.
Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea
Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/remote-control-robots-reveal-wh…- ice-sheet-is-melting/?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=a399a87175- DAILY_BRIEFING&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-a399a87175- 303429069
Other studies show that Greenland is losing ice at a much faster rate than previously anticipated.
Another study documents a dramatic albedo reduction caused by “vanishing Arctic sea ice.”
Another, the prolongation of the ice melt season.
Another paper found that pre-1990 estimates of sea level rise had been exaggerated and that the acceleration of the rise since then has been faster than previously realized:
“Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought.”
Another documented increased Antarctic ice losses.
In conclusion, one shouldn't read IPCC reports the way fundamentalists read the Bible. One should also take into account that the publication of IPCC reports doesn't mean the end of ongoing research.
Rather than entertaining the incoherent pseudoscience nonsensical ramblings of often-anonymous trolls who mysteriously seem to have plenty of spare time to simply make up stuff about reality, a reality that will severely and inevitably impact hundreds of millions, if not EVERYONE ultimately, I suggest we stick to credible sources.
Lets not forget that the rapidly collapsing WAIS is “irreversible”. Anyone who isn’t gravely concerned about this needs to have their head examined.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today [387 parts per million in 2009] — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
Stefanthedenier wrote: Thanks Greg, for proving me correct Silencing the truth is Marxist doctrine.
Sure, Greg Laden suppresses the truth and censors all dissent. That's why your four messages never appeared and no one knows about the 554 words total you wrote in them.
You want some truth? Here is some. You need first of all to learn how to write correct English. Your four comments are laughably ungrammatical. After mastering English grammar, you need to learn some basic science. Start with the fact that science thrives on competition and if there were any real evidence to debunk AGW, someone would have published it — making his reputation (and bucketfuls of money.)
I have no problem if you want to assert that the IPCC estimates are too low. It is certainly known that RC thinks so. The only way to resolve this is to wait and see what happens.
"“The range up to 98 cm is the IPCC’s “likely” range, i.e. the risk of exceeding 98 cm is considered to be 17%"
This is true only for the high emissions scenario RCP8.5 and only states the upper range (at least they use the ubiquitous "up to"). There are 4 emission scenarios considered. If you want to assert it is reasonable to expect we will track the upper range of RCP8.5 out to 2100 than that statement is accurate. I disagree RCP8.5 is more likely than the medium emission scenarios, but we cannot predict future behavior. Here is my example of a technically accurate statement:
If we continue on the highest emissions scenario considered by the IPCC we can expect a SLR of between 0.52m and 0.98m by the year 2100.
Now contrast that with:
"we can expect sea levels to be at least 8 meters higher, eventually"
The statement from the NCA is perfectly fine by me. Range, time frame, source. It has enough information in it to be falsifiable. I think the high end of 2m is pretty unlikely given the current trends but that is a different argument than the one I am making here.
I've seen lots of higher estimates from various sources (which is why I ultimately read the IPCC chapter) but they usually are dependent on events that are of low probability or the likelihood is unquantifiable, i.e. they are black swan events. I do not contest others have made higher estimates. It is arguable whether any of these should supersede the recent IPCC estimates.
One of the reasons the IPCC was created was to bring some sanity to the circus of different predictions made in different studies.
[The problem with all of this, I will say again, is that the paleorecord tells us what we can expect, but without a good time frame. The palerorecord shows that at current and expected (no matter what scenario) future levels of CO2, we will have polar ice melted sufficiently to produce sea levels significantly higher than they are now. It is almost certainly true that the details of ice cap melting are unknown. Perhaps there are major shifts in sea current patterns that would cause a relatively isolated southern continent to become much more amenable to rapid melting, for example. It is all speculation.
It is not at all speculative that very high sea levels are in store. The fact that we are having a hard time reconciling scales of change in the present with scales of change seen in the past does not at all suggest that the paleorecord is wrong but rather, that our understanding of the process is very limited. This means, very simply, that the IPCC estimates are based on very incomplete science when it comes to sea level rise.
And, again, in a place like Bangladesh (and other areas around the Indian Ocean coast, the southern and southeastern US, etc.) relatively small, < 1m, increases in sea level are likely to be devastating as both a permanent reshaping and relocation of coastlines, and as a means of giving more heft to effects such as large storms, groundwater contamination (with salt water), and inland flooding. These are not things that are in question yet you are primarily using your own incredulity combined with some fancy footwork with the acknowledged uncertainties to tenaciously stick to uncertainties about WHAT (not how or when) that are entirely inappropriate.
Tom Scharf –
“I do not contest others have made higher estimates. It is arguable whether any of these should supersede the recent IPCC estimates.”
The recent IPCC estimates superseded and raised previous IPCC estimates. This revision didn't occur in a vacuum, but was the result of additional research and additional knowledge. It shouldn't be necessary to mention that the IPCC doesn't do science, but depends on the scientific results of others. Recent research indicates that the factors that cause sea level rise are causing sea level rise to accelerate. I know of no peer-reviewed research that has reached a different conclusion.
I don't know if you've read the RC post I linked to, so I'd like to point out the following:
“One statement that I do not find convincing is the IPCC’s claim that “it is likely that similarly high rates [as during the past two decades] occurred between 1920 and 1950.” I think this claim is not well supported by the evidence. In fact, a statement like “it is likely that recent high rates of SLR are unprecedented since instrumental measurements began” would be more justified.”
It appears that the IPCC's claim not only isn't supported by the evidence, but that it has been refuted in one of the papers I referred to above.
This is the way science and academic disciplines in general work. New knowledge is added to old. Occasionally prior knowledge is rejected. Multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimatic data, show both that current levels of CO2 are associated with more than a 1 meter sea level rise, and that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. How much and exactly when are questions that can't be answered, but in light of what we already know and what we continue to learn, insisting that science stops with the IPCC and advocating a policy of wait and see is like refusing to put out a fire until you know when the rain will come and in which direction the wind will blow.
I would strongly suggest that you reread Greg's comments above. They sum up the situation better than I can.
Greg sea level rise in places like the Marshall Islands has caused groundwater levels to also rise and become salinated, in turn this has damaged their ability to grow food. As Bangladesh is so low and does not have bedrock close to the surface (as in the Dutch example above) do you suspect the same will happen there? Even if somehow the land does not get drowned it would be made infertile as a result.
G'day Christopher Winter, #54
I'm learning English, but is very slow. Is not my first or second language - if you are so proud that you can speak your own native language, good on ya! b] if you cannot pick any fault in my theories, so you pick on grammar... you are actually endorsing my theories.
2] nobody has published, because only I have the proofs! I tried here in Australia to publish; they told me that: they only do reprints here - don't except any work, because is all edited oversea.
3] I challenge all of you: to debate science with me; is good for you to know the truth - for when the leading Warmist / commissars end up on a witness stand under oath (for when the public learns the truth)
Hones scientist would would have said to Lomborg:
1] Aral sea is empty, lake Chad is 80% empty, lake Ayers in OZ empty, also other water storages around the world - when those storages are dry -> land for 1000km radius gets dryer => simple arithmetic, less water on land = more water in the sea. Lets build dams and save stormwater to improve the climate and attract clouds from the sea, clouds avoid dry land and no water storages
#2: honest scientist would have taken a piece of carpet - pushed against the wall of the swimingpool and demonstrated that: Indian subcontinent is lifting on one end Himalayas and sinking on southern side. On the other hand; carbon molesters would scare the world with the misfortunes of some people. Lomborg is semi -honest. He knows the story that: in the past both polar caps were ice free, which is bullshine! If anybody is interested in the truth; would have found this on my blog:
ICE FREE POLAR CAPS CRAP MISLEADING: on the polar caps the temp is minus -75C (-103F); for both polar caps to melt, the planet’s temp needs to warm up by 76C … cool – if the planet warmed by 76C and ad another 37C (98F)which is today in the tropics and subtropics 76 + 37 = 113C which is (235,8F). 113C is 13C above the water BOILING point (23,8F ABOVE WATER BOILING POINT)… From bacteria, trees, grass, animals and birds; all of them have water in their body = everything would have being cooked and sterilized in less than 10 minutes in the tropics and subtropics!!! Do you believe that 60% of the planet got sterilized?! ”Pagan belief s” which are the ”Skeptic’s” gospel AND the Warmist used those same pagan beliefs, to create their LIE that is going to be warmer planet in 100 years, is 100% WRONG!On 70C everything gets Pasteurized / killed, dead, kaput in 10 minutes, 113C is another 43C on top of that!
"on the polar caps the temp is minus -75C"
And you want us to debate the science with you?! You cannot even get the most basic of facts right!
Hint 1: on Antarctica even the mean temperature of the interior is 18 degrees higher than that. At the coast it is much, much warmer.
Hint 2: The Arctic is much less cold
Hint 3: "polar amplification" - a process already understood by Arrhenius in the 19th century
@ stefanthedenier #58 & 59 :
Oh we can and will pick holes in your theories for sure! No, pointing out that you're english is bad doesn't mean endorsing your ideas or that we can't refute your ideas as well.
I doubt both your claims there very much. Where did you try to publish and get told that and why is it that only you have "proof" and what "proof" exactly would that be?
Incidentally what's your background in terms of science and how much do you actually know about the field of climatology? Have you spent many years studying it and had any peer reviewed papers published?
Are you willing to accept the scientific evidence and results if they show you are incorrect and change your views here? I am.
Are you willing to clearly state what your alternative explanations are and provide actual convincing empirical evidence for your ideas based on scientific observations and sound logic?
Please note that threats of some sort of trials against scientists responsible for understanding climate are not scientific and are abusive and a personal attack. Please also note the use of words such as "Warmist" are generally considered derogatory and political not scientific as well as unclear. The field is called climatology, the scientists doing the studies are climatologists or climate scientists.
Also, please understand here that this debate is not new or original because virtually every argument used against the climatological consensus that Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating is real and presents a serious threat to our future well being and environmental health has been examined and repeatedly debunked. Every possible alternative has already been considered by the scientific experts and rejected. There are plenty of online and print references and resources covering this topic in huge depth and detail already. For just a few examples if you have not already done, so I urge you to look at and consider the following please :
1) The Skeptical Science website here with its long list of debunked arguments and why and how they have been debunked :
2) The RealClimate website. Written by actual climatologists and also comprehensive.
http:// (snap) realclimate (dot) org /index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
(Surely you know how to fix this link and make it work right? Remove the brackets and join as one and replace the (dots) with dots. Broken to avoid moderation and possible rejection as spam for too many links.)
3) The NASA page on climate change :
http: (snap) climate.nasa.gov (cut'n'paste or copy or search to find link.)
4) The Youtube series of Potholer54 and Greenman 3610 which I for one find informative, entertaining and excellent in terms of looking at this subject and the various climate canards often spouted - see :
https:// (snap) www (dot) youtube (dot) com/playlist?list=PL029130BFDC78FA33
(Greenman3610 / Peter Sinclair's 'Climate Denial Crock of the Week' series)
https:// (snap) www.youtube (dot) com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL36DD12D3AC5274E4
(Potholer54 climate change series.)
5) The Arctic sea ice page which regularly updates and provides information on the levels of sea ice in both Arctic and Antarctic poles among much more as well :
I would also highly recommend you read the following texts assuming you haven't already :
I) 'Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who's Right About Climate Change?' by Gareth Morgan & John McCrystal, Random House, 2009.
II) Feeling the Heat' by Jo Chandler, Melbourne University Press 2011.
II) , ‘Storms of My Grandchildren’ by Dr James Hansen, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2009.
There are plenty of other references but those would be my personal faves - feel free to suggest yours as well.
These are just for starters to avoid swamping you in the material before we've even properly begun.
Please take the time to properly read and consider what's written and said in the sources above by real scientists of the rocket and climate variety. Surprisingly enough, they aren't idiots and aren't very likely at all in it for the money or politics and if they could disprove HIRGO they would and would gain the Nobel prize by doing so!
Will continue later.
“I like ice also as an indicator of climate change for its political neutrality. Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, listens to no debates. Its not burdened by ideology and carries no political baggage as it crosses the threshold from solid to liquid. It just melts.”
- Dr Henry Pollack, geophysicist, University of Michigan.
Source : 'Watts Up with Sea Ice?', youtube video by Greenman3610, 1 minute 14 secs to 1 min 51 secs mark.
Continuing Part II @ stefanthedenier #58 & 59 :
(Part I currently awaiting moderation - plenty of sources and links and accepting the challenge offered.)
I dislike the way you use "hones" (sic) scientist" here implying the current scientists are dishonest, stefanthedenier. That does not seem like good faith, science respecting argument so please cease doing so if you want the civil science based debate you claim to want.
Also Lomberg is against the climatological consensus with his strategy generally seeming to be diverting attention to other issues and underestimating the scope and implications of the HIRGO (Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating) issue.
The Aral Sea is now almost totally empty because water from its rivers (The Amu Darya and Syr Dary aka Oxus and Jaxartes) was diverted for irrigating cotton.
Lake Chad is drying because of a mixture of overgrazing and exploitation such as irrigation and upstream dams plus shifts in pattern caused by climate change.
There is no "Lake Ayers" you seem to have confused Lake Eyre, the giant inland saltpan which is normally dry with the old name for Uluru, a giant rock in the centre of our continent.
Simple arithmatic with a few simple and obvious problems. Firstly, you need to get it to rain to fill those dams which is the reason why Lake Eyre for one is usually not an inland sea but a usually dry saltpan.
Yes large bodies of water create clouds and moisture but also these evapourate if there isn't a water source and to create them is costly and not always possible.
For instance the Aswan dam displaced 100,000 to 120,000 people and caused subsequent issues of salinity, water logging, shifting archaeological treasures, loss of sediment and thus soil changes - not for the better - and increased erosion downstream, plus reduced fish stocks due to quality issues and is also slowly silting up and thus losing capacity.
Similarly, China's Three Georges dam has created a lot of social and environmental problems of its own. That dam displaced 1.3 million people, caused major ecological changes, deforestation, water pollution, sedimentation and erosion shifts with negative downstream consequences and increased the risk of landslides and earthquakes.
(See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam#Environmental_impact )
Not sure either of those massive structures can be said to have had any significant broad scale effect on the global climate.
What does your simple arithmatic tell you please about how many dams and how large they need to be to have the global climatic effects you want? Have you actually done any maths on what sort of area and what amounts of saved stormwater and redirected river flows and rainfall would be required for your scheme to work?
I'm not clear on how you expect merely building dams and saving storm water - the latter being an intrinsically good idea in itself and one we have adopted here and in many other places to varying degrees - can actually change the climate. Certainly not to a sufficient extent.
In any case, dams and storm water retention are addressing the symptoms here - not refuting any of the actual science. We could, perhaps build a canal from Port Augusta to Lakes Torrens, Gairdner and South and North Lake Eyre and sacrifice the centre of Australia as an inland sea to drain off water from the rising oceans and it would do nothing to alter the observed scientific reality you apparently wish to deny.
Huh? What relevance is the well known and accepted geology of India to the issue of HIRGO? It has no actual bearing on the topic of hand that I can see. Do you somehow think that all the overwhelming atmospheric evidence from all around the world is derived only from the Indian subcontinent somehow! What the?! No, this simply is not relevant and if you believe otherwise you're going to really need some extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim indeed!
Again, you seem very incoherent and confused and are talking about something that is quite a separate issue from the topic at hand.
In past geological eras due to plate tectonics, thermohaline circulation patterns and previous atmospheric compositions the poles were indeed ice free at times. We used to have Dinosaurs walking around at the south pole for example. That was millions of years ago. When Earth was very different in a lot of ways and humans didn't live upon it.
Such past eras and the world maps and conditions back then are fascinating but not at all relevant to what we are experiencing today. Again, if you think otherwise then you are going to need to explain how and why.
Note that just because climate has changed due to natural factors before it doesn't automatically mean that that is what is happening currently. HIRGO actually supersedes natural variability which is part of how we know it is actually happening and why our planet isn't cooling down despite natural climate forcings that would be trending us towards a cooler climate if they were not being overridden by HIRGO.
Your last paragraph is as noted by Marco #60 in error on the facts and also a logical fallacy - Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam
because you seem to be saying that the negative consequences mean something isn't going to happen.
In addition, we know that HIRGO is uneven with the poles heating more and faster than the tropics and other regions. So its quite possible that melting poles don't mean everywhere on Earth is so hot as to sterilise everything.
Part III - Continuing @ stefanthedenier #58 & 59 :
As requested I have just given you a scientific and polite counter-argument (in parts I & II currently awaiting moderation) rebutting your claims and pointing out why they are either wrong or do not apply at all. In addition I have given you a list of sources and references that I enjoy and have found worthwhile and hope you will too.
I have chosen to do this and spend (waste?) my time and effort because you claim you want a scientific debate.
You now have some choices available to you :
A) You can acknowledge reality and accept that your arguments have been proven wrong and face that here with an admission of such. Obviously this what I would most appreciate and also think would earn you a new respect here.
B) You could continue the debate and argue your side reasonably (presuming Greg Laden as our host allows this which I presume he will.This is his blog equivalent to his home so we all need to abide by his house rules) putting forward good evidence and logic to make your points fairly and preferably without nasty and abusive language. This clearly would be my second favourite option from you and we can continue discussing this here until hopefully we get a positive resolution.
C) You can prove me and almost certainly most others right in thinking you are just trolling and not arguing in good faith by either ignoring what I and others here just said or resorting to abuse, goalpost shifting, and or general bad behaviour. I will theerby in any case have established your dishonourable and anti-scientific character and nature here. I hope you do not take this course of action even though it would confirm my current beliefs about you.
The decision as to how to respond now is yours. Choose wisely please and prove me wrong in thinking badly of you now if you can.
stefanthedenier is quite clearly six cans short of a sixpack.
Antarctica also has a very high altitude so the surface is closer to space. With a thinner, and ozone depleted atmosphere, of course it is very cold.
However, as GHGs rise and Antarctica inevitably deflates its elevation will reduce, warm up and melting will accelerate.
An ice-free Antarctica is not now inconceivable but even if it takes thousands of years to melt, it is still deeply unethical to cause it to happen now.
"“One statement that I do not find convincing is the IPCC’s claim that “it is likely that similarly high rates [as during the past two decades] occurred between 1920 and 1950.”"
There is a newer post here:
Fig. 2 Shows that SLR rates did in fact rise in this time period to "similar" levels. RC shows higher rates now then in 1950. The IPCC graph shows a closer match. You can read the first comment there where I ask this question and they respond. Different mathematical methods.
The JASON satellite altimeter doesn't show these changes of rates they are deriving in the tide gauges. Not sure what to make of that. Different measurements. The altimeter is probably a better gauge of global sea level but has only been around for about 20 years.
If you have a specific source that you claim supersedes the IPCC and can document that there is a consensus on this, I will take a look at it. It looks like a lot of different claims to me at this point. We will see what they say in the next report.
Now days the gravest effect of climate change may prove to be human migration. In 2014, 42 million people where displaced due to the effects of natural disasters and climate whether changes. Climate is no longer just an environmental factor and one of the best plans for the struggling Bangladesh will be to protect the land that they can and move the rest of the population to a place of higher ground via the means of migration projects. This should seem to be the best plan for the foreseeable future for Bangladesh.
"...move the rest of the population to a place of higher ground via the means of migration projects."
Considering that would be, um, India, Nepal, and Bhutan, I think you'd better ask THEM what they think about that plan!
(This is the point of such "solutions" to SLR: Where ya gonna go???)
Tom Scharf –
The newer RC post you've referred to states:
“In all curves, the current rates of rise are the highest since records began.”
Re. Figure 2:
“The graph shows that the rates vary over time and also differ between the curves. All reconstructions agree on one point: the rate of rise in the last two decades (about 3 cm per decade) is the highest on record.”
The IPCC's estimates of the rate of current sea level rise are contested, and referring once again to the IPCC in this particular case only documents what the IPCC has said, not that it's correct. As I mentioned, recent research shows that the rate of sea level rise has been accelerating. Even though that research only points in one direction, you've chosen to ignore that in favor of wait and see what the IPCC says next time. The RC post concludes with the following passage:
“Ultimately, it is not clear down to what level of accuracy we will ever know the sea level evolution over the past hundred years or so. But for practical purposes, I don’t think it matters whether the rise from 1900 AD has been 3 centimetres more or less. I do not think this changes our outlook for future sea-level rise in any significant way.”
What would the IPCC have to say to convince you that sea level rise presents a serious problem within this century?
I began comment #52 by quoting this:
“And then of course there are folks like the professional climate change down-player Bjørn Lomborg, who in an international newspaper commentary wrote that IPCC gives “a total estimate of 40-62 cm by century’s end” – and also fails to mention that the lower part of this range requires the kind of strong emissions reductions that Lomborg is so viciously fighting.”
As your position resembles Lomborg's, I'd like to ask if you favor “strong emissions reductions” that would enable us to avoid the IPCC's “worst case emissions scenario?” Or are you also here in favor of “wait and see?”
Thanks for your replays – all my life I had great respect for somebody correcting me; because I don’t like to be wrong. We can have a great civilized, scientific debate; but: because I’m on different time zone b] because I have to look occasionally in dictionary for English words, time consuming, because I’m very busy: would be good if you ask the host; not to put my comments in moderation – so we can speed up the conversation.
2] please state what you believe in, and substantiate – not ‘’Sceptical Science’’ even the name is misleading b] ‘’climate denier’’ is a crock, yes! He knows that: if somebody denies that climate is changing = is a nutcase (some ‘’skeptics’’ do) not me! For the last 40 000y people created all the deserts by rubbing two sticks together and destroyed the climate beyond recognition – also; climate can be improved, because now we have bulldozers, cement mixers and pipes, to save stormwater and improve the climate to before mongrels scorched the vegetation on sensitive places – now the desert created dry heat makes damages on 1000miles away. Call them here as spectators, and to help you; but please; not like the one that is telling me that ‘’ on Antarctic the temp is 18C’’, or the one who is telling somebody that ‘’the sun needs oxygen, to keep burning’’ So: those that you rely on - if the public knows the truth -.they would be in jail. B] complaining about ''Warmist'' I didn't give you that name BUT: they gave ''climate change deniers'' to make connection with the holocaust = a hint: ''God put your dirty butt, where you can never see it; but others can see it''
3] because I know what you know – but you don’t know what I know = I have unfair advantage on you: I’m soft target – read my post first; so we can have a great debate, because Greg chickened out (on your other comment will answer, if this comment doesn't end up in rubbish -: because I grew up, where Glasnost / openness was not allowed / only one sided debate) https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
Andy Lee Robinson #64 said:
''An ice-free Antarctica is not now inconceivable but even if it takes thousands of years to melt, it is still deeply unethical to cause it to happen now''''
Andy, keep daydreaming!... BUT: it's only wishful thinking, anyway, live in hope...
There is ''permanent'' ice in New Zealand and Patagonia - thousands of miles closer to the equator - need first that ice to melt completely; before the ''first ounce'' of ice on Antarctic is melted, because of the ''global temperature'' As long as Antarctic is were she is, will never melt. b] example: if you have a pipe, to pump all the moist / hot air from around Indonesia to Antarctic, there is enough coldness there, to build another 30km thick ice on the top of the existing one, in one season!!! The amount of ice on the polar caps depend on the availability of raw material for replenishing the ice, NOT on temperature!!! And on 5-6 other factors. Ask and you will learn the truth - the ''propaganda'' is just that; propaganda for spooking the ignorant...
Arrhenius was the father of all lies. if you read his ''baseless predictions'' - even you would get embarrassed
2] the highest temp on Antarctic was recorded at -86C, but average in winter is -75C. On Antarctic NEVER even gets close to ice melting point. Example: the steam from your teacup comes out at 95C - from that temp, takes about 15 seconds in the air to turn into ice crystals on Antarctic. Why the truth upsets you?! You should rejoice that: ''melting ice on Antarctic'' is only a cheap lie. Have a joyful day and sleep well, without worrying about those fairy tales. the more you relax => the longer you live. The phony ''global'' warming didn't lose its compass, here is the truth:
Tropics &subtropics are warming the polar caps / polar caps are cooling the tropics &subtropics. Therefore: need to get warmer by 10C on tropics &subtropics, polar caps to warm up by 2C, because: ''heat prefers to go UP, not sideways'' experiment: Make a campfire and stand 15 feet away -> you will warm up only by 1C - if you want to warm up by 2C at that distance - need to double the heat production in the fire! Happy now? just relax, nothing to worry about! They keep telling you; how hot will get on the polar caps - but they never honestly tell you: ''how cold does it get there NOW! cheers!
They used different mathematical methods post processing data sets from the same papers. Effectively RC uses shorter averaging windows. These are minor differences in the grand scheme. The raw tide gauge data is what it is.
I have no idea what point you are making, that I am not sufficiently alarmed?
The world should prepare for 1ft to 3ft of sea level rise by 2100. Most likely around 2 ft. If you want to call this a "serious problem", go ahead. I am going to call it "2 feet". And for the last and final time, my original point here is that what I am not going to call it is "8 meters".
The IPCC says what it says. If you have found that I am quoting them inaccurately or in a misleading way, please point this out. That I use their numbers should not be controversial.
The 2 medium emissions scenarios are also documented by the IPCC. I am quoting from memory here, but as I recall they consider peak emissions to occur around 2040 and 2080. China has committed to peak emissions in 2030. The rest of the world is unknown and difficult to predict.
What action should be taken? Most of SLR will occur after 2050. Building a 3 foot sea wall today would be pointless. Over the next 4 decades we should get a pretty good idea how we are tracking. Building codes should consider future SLR. Most areas in Florida are already at 10 ft+ due to 100 year hurricane storm surge estimates. The cost differential between building a house up 10 feet and 13 feet should not be too penalizing.
Running the numbers on emissions show that it is China, India et. al. that control future emissions trajectories. The most productive path is to find/invent/research cheap clean energy sources for China and India to expand their energy infrastructure with. Energy policy in the US isn't very important mathematically.
Tom Scharf –
As far as I can see no one has suggested that we'll see 8 meters of sea level rise in this century. But this is a not unlikely long-term result of current and increasing CO2 levels. Recent polar research has observed increased rates of melting and increasing signs of the destabilization of polar ice sheets, and has endeavored to understand what's happening. Much of this research wasn't included in the IPCC report because it came out too late to be reviewed, or because it came out after the report was issued. This research indicates that melting is accelerating and that the IPCC estimates of future sea level rise are too low. But let that be. The small amount of sea level rise we've experienced is already affecting water supply and vegetation on certain low lying islands. It exacerbated Sandy's storm surge and increased the resulting damage. It increases the vulnerability of coastal aquifers to salt water intrusion.
You state that we should prepare for 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100. This in itself will be a disaster for many locations and many populations.
In more vulnerable areas, such as the Bangladesh and Nile deltas, the combination of land subsidence and sea level rise will result in a rise far greater than the global average.
At the same time you state that developed nations, which are most responsible for current CO2 levels, shouldn't do anything, and that the responsibility for reducing emissions rests solely on the backs of countries like India and China. (In addition, a sizable amount of “their” emissions in reality are ours, because much emissions related manufacturing has been outsourced and the results of those emissions are exported to us.) So while not exactly denying anthropogenic climate change, you are trivializing its consequences by limiting them to a discussion of Florida building codes, and exculpating those who are responsible for most of the cumulative emissions. When I googled tom scharf wuwt, I wasn't at all surprised to see your comments there. “Wait and see” is the road to disaster.
If I understand Bjorn Lomborg's argument correctly, I do not have to worry about the inflation of money and the rise in the cost of living because for the past 9 months both have been flat---- therefore neither will rise again, regardless of the past 1,380 month's history showing both have been rising steadily with periods of flat lines.
Whew! What a relief. I can now tell my employer I don't need that raise in pay we've been discussing.
Re. sea level rise beyond the IPCC estimates:
"Ice melt from the subcontinent has already accelerated as warmer marine currents have migrated north, but older models predicted that once higher ground was reached in a few years, the ocean-induced melting would halt. Greenland's frozen mass would stop shrinking, and its effect on higher sea waters would be curtailed.
'That turns out to be incorrect. The glaciers of Greenland are likely to retreat faster and farther inland than anticipated – and for much longer – according to this very different topography we've discovered beneath the ice,' said lead author Mathieu Morlighem, a UCI associate project scientist. 'This has major implications, because the glacier melt will contribute much more to rising seas around the globe.'
"...The team also reported stark new findings last week on accelerated glacial melt in West Antarctica. Together, the papers 'suggest that the globe's ice sheets will contribute far more to sea level rise than current projections show,' Rignot said."
"The largest glacier in East Antarctica, containing ice equivalent to a six-metre (20- foot) rise in global sea levels, is melting due to warm ocean water, Australian scientists said on Monday...
'And so the fact that warm water can reach this glacier is a sign that East Antarctica is potentially more vulnerable to changes in the ocean driven by climate change than we used to think.'
"...'East Antarctica is not as protected from change as we use to think,' he said.
The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting part of Antarctica has tripled over the past decade, analysis of the past 21 years showed, according to research published last month."
"Re. sea level rise beyond the IPCC estimates"
It was noted by some, such as Dr. Mann, back in the era of TAR, that the IPCC was conservative in their assessments. I recall the "mayor" (actually a governor) of Jakarta expressing dismay at the IPCC for "low-balling" the threat to much of Indonesia's human population when AR4 was published.
It's a "game theory" problem. If the IPCC assesses the science and concludes threats are less than what is later observed, the people at risk are rightfully upset; if the IPCC assesses a greater risk than what is later observed, the hysterical anti-science lunatics insist the world's scientists don't know what they are doing---- there is no "win" in assessing risks when the results are politicized by people who do not understand how science works.
Politicians don't want to hear about levels of confidence in projected risks; they want hard lines drawn. With the anti-regulators (free market fundamentalists), they love scientists stating uncertainties and talking about levels of confidence: it fuels the fabrication of doubt in areas where there is none.
I think it is also simply the fact that the kind of melting we may expect to see with 400-500ppm CO2 is so large that it is beyond grasp.
It is a little like saying, five or ten year ago, that Ebola could produce an epidemic that sickens tens of thousands of people in several countries and even end up infecting people in Europe and the US. It was unthinkable since Ebola always comes in small batches and burns out quickly, and once health care systems come into play, has always been pretty easily squashed. Couldn't possibly do ... what it eventually actually did.
OK, lets get to the bottom of it; lets find out who is telling the truth!
No matter how dishonest scientist are, not allowed to say, or prove... that’s cool
2]Lomborg’s comments are loaded comments – he is always insinuating that the phony ‘’global’ warming is for real. The truth: nobody is monitoring on 99,999999999% of the planet – thermometer can monitor room temp, but not for 100000km2 – global temp is not like human body; when under armpit gets 1C up = the whole body is warmer by that much, temp on the planet is different on every km and changes every 15minutes – nobody knows what was last year’s global temp to save his life; cannot compare one unknown with another unknowns! IF you are really concern about the phony global warming – you will read every sentence on my post; not doing that, proves that YOU already know that you are wrong!
2] I wasn't arguing why Aral sea and other water storages are empty- actually I argue that they can and should be filled up. Instead, I was pointing that: when those storages are empty -> surrounding lands are dryer – and all that water rises the sea-level!!!
3]large bodies of water ‘’attract’’ extra clouds from the sea b] they get the clouds ‘’lower’’ to drop the rain c] water evaporated from dams, rice paddies benefits the surrounding trees and make milder temp. D] turning Burdekin river inland, would attract more rain inland and that would fill up the lake Ayer! E] presume: if there were 2000 small lakes on the dry creeks from Cairns to Broome – to attract extra regular clouds from the sea – trees would have being growing out of your ears, in that beautiful soil – if somebody tried to drain those imaginary small dams, and turned the land into semi-desert, as it is now – would have being international outcry. Instead, Flannery made shows, on taxpayer’s ABC, telling the Urban Sheep that water storages are bad for climate... Congo river floodwater turned north, would have filed lake Chad and made Sahara green- you prefer all floodwater into the sea, because the oceans don’t have enough water for you people?!... Fish don’t survive in creeks dry for 6 months. More ‘’erosion ‘’below’’ dams... WOW!
4]Aswan dam has water storage for 7 years, for a desert country – you prefer sewage water for drinking and desalination. Three gorges dam replaces 7 coal-powered power stations – you prefer more CO2, for winging; same as Bob Brown made himself a name by preventing electric dam to be build, to con about CO2...?
5] lots of ‘’small, cheap’’ dams improve the climate – not the size, the number counts! Dams prevent floods and droughts. Fish lives in dams, not in dry creeks for 6months.
6] dams increase humidity / gets day temp lower – night higher = better climate. Desertification increases day temp / colder night; because Carbon molesters take in consideration only the hottest minute in 24h, and ignore the other 1439 minutes, for fear-mongering – dams are bad... another WOW!
7] you have lots of ‘’evidences’’ from around the planet; which only proves that: lots of tax $$ are looted, to promote the sick ideology. Please read my post first; then I will give you all the evidences you need, I promise!
8] global warmings / polar caps ice free, during dinosaurs... wow! Truth: polar caps were on different places – in 3m years south poll will not be on Antarctic; but north poll will be in Washington DC. Long before then, people will know the truth, and cannot be coned again. BUT: if now is fulfilled your wish – polar caps ice free – in US, Europe would be 7C above water boiling point – you wouldn’t be worrying abbot Bangladesh and polar bears. Listen very carefully: you read every sentence in my post; to know what I know; because what you people know, everybody knows – I promise to prove to you scientifically ‘’why the sea was higher in the past’’
9] please don’t make connections of ‘’regular climatic changes’’ with any past / future phony ‘’global’’ warmings. I’m not a ‘’sceptic’’ Anthony Watt’s mushroom! Instead of telling me ‘’can happen, if happen’’ – here: the more you know -> the more you are worth / winning general in battle is the one who knows what the opponent knows and has! Read my post and learn about the: Temperature Self Adjusting Mechanism (TSAM) to know what I have, don’t be coward! There is more chance for the moon to slam at the earth, than global temp to increase by 1C, all proven!!!
Just another global warming denialist.
stefanthedenier: Where did you find your data on Antarctic temperatures, as they are completely different from any I could find?
Yet parts of the Antarctic Peninsula have average temperatures above freezing for several months.
I find most of your writing to be almost incoherent and it seems to me that your 'campfire experiment' displays a serious lack of understanding of the physics involved. You would do well to read Astrostevo's suggestions before commenting further.
I find most of your writing to be almost incoherent....
You are too polite.
OK, lets get to the bottom of it; lets find out who is telling the truth!
#1: all of the world's scientists and the evidence;
#2: the fossil fuel industry and "free market" cultists.
Golly, that's a tough one....
Richard Simons #80
Richard, you people cannot find anything that doesn't suit you... tragic... #1: on the beaches of antarctic peninsular some ice is melted; because there the sea is rough - saltwater splashes and melts the ice - nothing to panic about, that always happened and always will.
Tragically, you cannot find information that: there is permanent ice in Patagonia and New Zealand - thousand miles north, closer to the equator; because it doesn't suit you. ''Ostrich tactic science'' is fashionable - can you tell me why?! Q: do you think also that: on Antarctic the temp get only to -18C? OR do you know that: minus -18C gets in Vienna on winter nights / in the center of Europe?
I give you credit for this: -''your confusion is very coherent''
Fossil fuel AND the shonky ''climatologist are following the money. Can we bring the truth, just because humanity needs it desperately?
1] if you people can close the fossil fuel industry -> the planet cannot sustain more than 3billion people => would mean: premeditated murder of 4 billion people, in less than 18 months...
2] ''climatologist'' that don't know what the real climate is, the one outside, in the environment; don't know that desert climate is bad, for lack of H2O, not co2 - instead for them the ''climate change' therm is something that comes from Met office and from IPCC......... Some day for those manipulators ; when the public knows the truth - some kind of Nuremberg model court will be established for those morally bankrupt ''scientists'' The truth always wins on the end. They cannot manipulate the thermometers forever - people on the street will see that: global temp is ALWAYS the same!!! cheers!
Hmmmm.... hang on, can I have extra time? I'm not sure I can get this right...
"Richard, you people cannot find anything that doesn’t suit you"
You are projecting. You claimed it never gets close to ice melting point on Antarctica. This is complete and utter nonsense, as anyone can check out for themselves. But apparently you cannot find this, because it does not suit you.
Regarding permanent ice in New Zealand...well, that is getting less and less::
... if you people can close the fossil fuel industry....
By "you people" I assume you mean "all of the world's educated, sane, intelligent people" such as scientists and pro-science communicators. No: we are not advocating the end of fossil fuel usage any time within the next 30 to 40 years--- none of us "you people" have said that is possible, nor have us "you people" said that is desirable. Ending all fossil fuel use immediately would be #1 disastrous and #2 unfair to countries with poor energy access who still need to raise their standards of living. You will not find any of us "you people" who think the "developing countries" should sacrifice that much.
What you will find all of the educated, intelligent people (your "you people") saying is that the people who have benefited most from fossil fuels have the ethical and moral duty to end their production of greenhouse gases, and to finance the efforts of "developing countries" to adapt to the changes in their climates that we developed countries caused. It is merely a matter of fairness: if you, "stefanthedenier," crap on someone's dinner table in their dining room, it is your duty (ethically, morally, and legally) to clean up your shit. You may crap on your own dinner table as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, but as soon as your table is over-flowing with your shit, then it's your duty to clean it until it's no longer harming people.
People like you really do believe it is your gods-given right to shit on other people's heads and then tell them the shit is a gift, and if they don't like the gift, it is their responsibility to dispose of it. This means you and your cult are anti-social and immature, and a danger to the very society that coddles and comforts and supports you. You and your cult want all of the benefits and you and your cult want to avoid paying for those benefits; you and your cult want to avoid taking responsibility for the harm your extravagant usage of fossil fuels has caused to people who have not received any benefits from your use of fossil fuels.
It is past time for users of fossil fuels to fix what we broke. This is not optional: your participation is mandatory, and you have no say in the matter: get the fuck used to it.
@69. stefanthedenier :
Okay, I've been away and then really busy this past week or so and not had time to go online much and continue this debate (such as it is!) till now so for that my apologies.
If its any consolation my comments sometimes go into moderation here too. Greg Laden's blog and his rules and I'm sure there are good reasons for that.
I take it you mean just on this subject not in general - I believe in a lot of things based on a lot of evidence and logic!
In regards to the climatological consensus I accept the scientists and the evidence and what they tell us, i.e. Global Overheating is a real human-induced problem happening excessively fast from an astronomical and ecological perspective and something we need to act to mitigate ASAP. (Accept not believe in - its like believing in gravity or evolution- these things aren't a matter for belief so much as being proven parts of reality.)
It is? What makes you say that and where's your supporting evidence for that claim? Why and where exactly do you think that site is wrong?
Huh? You are calling yourself a denier you seem to be saying that climate isn't changing and you are disputing the reality observed by people globally. It seems to me that you are indeed denying that and are even proud of it. Also Greenman3610 isn't saying all deniers are nutcases. Which clip of his preferably with a time stamp gave you that idea?
Bzzt wrong. People didn't create all the deserts and deserts long predated humanity and existed naturally due to something called solar insolation, the rainshadow effect and other things. Antarctica for instance is actually a desert as well as the Sahara and if you look on a globe you'll find a lot of deserts at the same latitude range due to similar climatic patterns e.g. Hadley cell circulation, continental landmass with rainshadows and atmospheric circulation patterns meaning they get little if any regular rainfall. Add basic geography to the things you need to research!
It true that humans have expanded the area some deserts due to things like overgrazing, over-exploiting water sources, deforestation etc .. but this does NOT mean the created all deserts. Saying that is just silly.
I've already asked you nicwly to avoid defaming scientists inthis debate which you intend so yousay to scientific and reasonable. I'll ask you again.
I will however also ask that if you say they deserve to be on trial you explain exactly why and what charges you think they are guilty of. You should be aware by now that the climatologists whose emails were stolen and then selectively misquoted to give a false impression of misconduct by the likes of Fox news were subsequently repeated cleared of all wrong doing.
Never heard of mirrors eh?
Also Stefan you call yourself a denier in your very nym and it is an accurate description of what you and the other deniers are doing - denying the reality of climate change and Global Overheating here. This has long term consequences which are already harming real people's lives and harming our environment globally which is why a lot of people -myself included - get really angry about it. You need to rethink what you are doing and stop doing it.
I did have a quick look at your "Cooling Earth" blog. It begins really badly with an obvious error of fact. You appear to have a very strange and gravely mistaken (lack of ) understanding idea of basic physics (and astronomy) including how temperature actually works and you have provided no sources whatsoever to back up your extraordinary claims with the required extraordinary evidence. (Carl Sagan's Law.)
PS. I think you mean Alpha Centauri is the nearest star to our Sun not "Alpha Century" as you spelt it - technically its currently Proxima Centauri a red dwarf component of that multiple star system. Yes its a small detail, perhaps a typo but to get such basic things so wrong and not fix them seems to indicate a enormous amount of sloppiness and unwillingness to check and correct reflecting very badly on you. That is, however, probably about the least of your errors there!
@70. etc .. stefanthedenier :
There is ice on the top of the Himalayas and even Hawaiian peaks too - because of their altitude. High altitudes equals colder temperatures and no, the ice on these high peaks doesn't have to all melt before the poles do because we're looking at very different situations here.
So when our Sun becomes a red giant and our planet heats up to the point of becoming a lava ocean Antarctica if still located at one of the poles will still be ice covered? Yeesh!
There is a point where if global and regional temperatures rise enough water will fall on Antarctica as rain (it already sometimes does in some parts) not snow. How can you not understand that?
Really? Name say three of them. Also again with the baseless uncalled for defaming and insulting of actual scientists albeit from way back in history.
I am no longer even the slightest bit surprised to find you are factually in error and arguing in bad faith.
Even at McMurdo station the temperature was about zero degrees. Further north on the Antartican peninsula it has reacehd much hotter tempertaures. Wikipedia notes :
"The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 °C at Hope Bay on 24 March 2015. At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) on 25 December 2011. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 °C (59 °F) have been recorded.."
If you want a scientific debate as you claim stefan, you are going to need to accept and use actual science not just make up your own "facts" and then have the gall to accuse others of lying!
@79. stefanthedenier :
Forget "insinuating' he's saying Global Overheating is real - and he's right. At least on that, he still massively downplays its impacts and significance.
@ Stefanthedenier :
How do you get from the first part of that sentence to the second? Have you actually looked at all that evidence? Are you even willing to do so? it seems not.
How about this you just fill in the blank here with your very best bit of evidence right here
"I think that the overwhelming majority of climate experts are wrong and I am right because ____________ . "
Well that's a remarkably specific if not exactly easily provable hypothesis there from you. North pole at Washington in 3 million years. We'll well, not see I guess.
Wow? Well these are impressive and also well-known established facts. I thought you said you had some sort of scientific knowledge and qualifications even - no? Guess not.
Its NOT my wish to have ice free poles. My wish is that we act now and indeed I wish we'd acted much sooner to mitigate the scale of the problem. You are the one who is helping make my fear - not wish - reality through arguing against taking any necessary action to slow the problem and make it a lesser not greater one.
Oh don't you worry about that as former Qld premier Bjelke-Petersen would say. There's no danger of me confusing previous natural climate changes with today's human induced ones.
I disagree - and I've read your post and arguments and found that they don't add up or match the known well established laws of physics.
For example you've said :
This would be an extraordinary claim from you. It needs to be backed with extraordinary evidence. It isn't and you are the only person I've seen making this extraordinary claim which is made as an unsupported assertion. Where is your evidence for it being a real occurence and why hasn't, say, NASA noted this remarkable phenomenon before now?
Also, I did ask before and you have failed to respond to my earlier questions in comment # 61 :
1) Where did you try to publish and get told that and why is it that only you have “proof” and what “proof” exactly would that be?
2) Incidentally what’s your background in terms of science and how much do you actually know about the field of climatology?
3) Have you spent many years studying climatology or related scientific disciplines and have you ever had any peer reviewed papers published?
4) Are you willing to accept the scientific evidence and results if they show you are incorrect and change your views here? I am.
5) Are you willing to clearly state what your alternative explanations are and provide actual convincing empirical evidence for your ideas based on scientific observations and sound logic?
I think I've been more than patient and respectful enough with you and I think you need to answer those five key questions. Please do so now without too much further delay.
I hope you had good time on your absence
1] for ‘’stolen emails, I say: if any ‘’Skeptic’’ needed somebody to intercept emails and tell him that: tree rings from California can tell the temp on the ‘’whole’’ planet… my tiers will not help him much, he needs a shrink; so does Mann, for trying to con the ignorant. A lumberjack or orchard farmer can tell you that 30 different things affect the tree growth – therefore: tree rings cannot tell about the climate on the hill was growing – two trees, 6 feet apart have different rings. Grow up! Honest persons will never attempt to use tree rings!
2] I’m sure you know that I meant: whatever YOU believe regarding the phony ‘’global’’ warming – for which you guys are calling ‘’climate change’’ AND by objecting water to be saved on dry land = you are proving that: not only you don’t care about the real climate BUT prefer climate to deteriorate.
3] you are again confusing climatic changes with the phony global warming… a] from summer climate, we are going into winter climate b] some places is wet climate, others dry climate – sometime wet climate gets dry, even dry gets wet occasionally BUT the phony ‘’global’’ warming is avalanche of crap! All proven! You guys inside the box lost contact with what climate is! That’s why you wrongly say: climate change deniers, sometime even ‘’climate deniers’’ it tells all about you – nobody, nobody denies that climate exist!
4]Skeptical science is ‘’skeptical’’ as much as you. BUT: I say to the Skeptics: ‘’ genuine skeptic’’ would never said: ‘’global warming slowed, or paused’’ because: what doesn’t exist, cannot slow down, or stop – Warmist say it stopped, because: if they increase every year – on paper will get warmer by 20C and people will notice something fishy – instead, they will speed it up, when suits them, as for Paris conference’’ I hope it answers your question.
5] I call myself ‘’global warming’’ denier – as a reverse psychology, because I was called denier many times before; I can prove that climate is changing, because of H2O, nothing to do with CO2! I have proven that ‘’global’’ warming is the biggest con, since Homo Erectus invented language!
6] Antarctic is the wettest continent on the planet – Australia would be happy to have 5% of the water Antarctic has – she is a smart continent, keeps the water as ice – we can keep water in dams. Every year there over 1m of ice is melted on the bottom and similar amount is created, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air. Hadley cell?!?! On same latitude where Australian tropical rivers, creeks are dry for 6 months in a year – on same latitude in Brazil creeks and rivers are filling up Amazon. I wish I can put you on a witness stand, under oath
7] overgrazing?! Grass needs cow, as much as cow needs grass! Ask me why. B] deforestation is bad – people should be made: when cutting one tree, to plant tree. Unfortunately, trees have intelligence, they refuse to grow where is no H2O. Human can save stormwater. Before artificially fire was invented – was only from lightening, when was wet from the rain. Fire turns organic matter into ash – wind and flood wash it away- after 20-30 fires, trees say: kiss my ass! desert follows. You must be a city slicker… your mom was putting water on the pot plant on the window seal – should ask her, why? Nobody gives water to trees, grass in bush – they collect moisture from the air b] moisture in the air slows evaporation and drying the soil. You are against moisture inland Australia = that’s treason. C] inland dry heat produced is vacuuming the moisture from costal areas for many months and preparing it for bushfires – many people, animals, property burn. Being against ‘’saving stormwater’’ = premeditated mass murder. Helicopters are used for ‘’water’’ instead of saving billion times more water in dams, for moist air. Blaming CO2 instead… CO2 is fire retardant gas. No moisture = fire!
8] quick look at my post? You run away after a paragraph, and saying that is no evidences?! The evidences are all there, real evidences! For what do you need extra evidence; just ask! Important: CO2 has 2 atoms of oxygen – when warmed – goes UP, where cooling is much more efficient; because the ‘’cold vacuum’’ is constantly coming there and neutralizes any heat = CO2 is not a greenhouse gas! I don’t know what is on Alpha Centaury, and care less! Do you need evidence that: on 7-8-10km is very cold? Do you need evidence that: warmed co2 goes up? Read every sentence- or admit that you are suffering from ‘’truth phobia’’ – ‘’overheating’’ is inside your head, not in the environment! All proven! If anyone of you know physics – wouldn’t say: ‘’heat from the ground is prevented by co2 to ‘’radiate’’ out in space’’ shame, shame, shame! Heat doesn’t radiate far, b] no heat conduction – between every co2 molecule a lots of O2&N2 atoms, as brilliant insulators. Stop guillotining physics!
Just another person in denial of global warming. Nothing new here.
1] Antarctic is mountain country – in Patagonia ice comes to sea-level
2] you say: ‘’ when our Sun becomes a red giant and our planet heats up to the point of becoming a lava’’ That’s ‘’wishful thinking’’ mate, keep daydreaming, you guys really have fertile imagination – but don’t hold your breath, because will not happen for another few billion years – by then Antarctic will not be on the south poll… when our sun becomes red giant, you will not worry much about the polar bear and Bangladesh, when you scare the children, say BOO!!!
3] too often you guys use the word ‘’IF’’ starts raining on Antarctic- rain will freeze instantly. I have already given examples: a]’’if you pump enough hot / humid air from Indonesia to Antarctic – you can build another 30km thick ice, on the top of the existing one, that’s how much coldness is there b] when water vapor gets out of your coffee cup at 98C – in 10 seconds turns into ice crystals’’ This time, can you remember it? I have proven that is no such a thing as global warming; relax guys, stop wetting the bed from fears. People give you the benefit of the doubt – but when they realize that they have being duped -> the thing will hit the fen…
4] Arrhenius ‘’predicted’’ 1]most of Siberia will be wheat farms – 2]will be no ice on Arctic, 3]Northwest passage will be open for shipping lines, 4]Holland will be flooded. Scientist from way back in history defamed themselves – they are the weapons ‘’Skeptics’’ use against you – in the post ‘’skeptic’s stinky skeletons’’ are plenty of those lies, read every sentence of it and say if I’m wrong, or they?
5] in Vienna on winter nights gets down to -20c, in Europe 2] I will always accept science! I’m always grateful when corrected; because I don’t want to be wrong. 3] what comes from IPCC and Met office is NOT science. Mate, with all the bias media support – you cannot con most of the people – people are divided on political line; I’m not interested in politics, only in the naked truth! People that believe you; when the truth is known, will be more mad at you, than the rest. When the same media turns mercilessly on you – to prove that ‘’they were only reporting what they were told’’ even though they are guilty as hell, even your commissars will start pointing fingers at each other. 4] imagine if tomorrow the media reported what is on my post that ‘’you are ridiculing’’ because secular skeptics & believers on the street would like to know the truth, not the mountains of con on Wikipedia, regarding climate
6] all ‘’my facts’’ are proven now; co2 is NOT a greenhouse gas! ‘’may happen, if happen, somebody say it will happen, possibly will happen’’ is only used by palm readers and ‘’climatologist’’ They should ‘’predict’’ the wining numbers on lottery and stop fleecing the working people. Go and gen a honest job – instead of ‘’demanding to be believed, or else’’ B] Ask me to prove to you that: 1] CO2 doesn’t prevent heat from ‘’radiating out in space’’ 2] to prove that: heat created by co2 doesn’t ‘’radiate’’ back down to the ground 3] co2 is less than 400ppm / O2&N2 is 998999ppm in the atmosphere – therefore: roof on a greenhouse made from fishnet or postage stamp would make the building ‘’not a greenhouse’’! 4]Do you need a proof that: CO2, O2&N2 expend when warmed and go up?! Do you need a proof that: 6-10km altitude is very cold; where the heat is neutralized? 5] I have proven that: if you collect all the ‘’extra’’ heat accumulated from the 70’s until 2100 – you wouldn’t have enough heat, to boil one chicken egg! Q: how come you didn’t notice those 5 points; but are noticing my pigeon English?! Skipping paragraphs on my post is not a science! If my science doesn’t fit the propaganda – start using the simple science on my post that anybody secular can understand! It will be much worse for you people, if the truth comes from the street, up!
7] when ‘climatologist’’ doesn’t know that: clouds ‘’avoid dry land – if they get there, they are very high and seldom rains BUT: if water is saved on the headwaters of tropical rivers, creeks -> will attract extra clouds inland and make better climate’’ are you telling me to believe, those people about the climate?! I have being seating on the banks of those rivers in flood; when water is to the top of the trees – after 6 months scorching dry riverbed – all that water wasted, because of Brown’s &Flannery’s water embargo on Australian environment… B] you saying that: I must believe what some apparatchiks are saying = would be same as: if I said that: you should believe what the ''Skeptics'' are saying -instead, I say: go sometime and listen to their crap; it's entertaining...?
You haven't answered my questions in #92.
Please do so.
Please note that you cannot simply make up your own "facts" and substitute them for actual scientifically measured observations. Also you can't just say something is "proven" when you have provided nothing to actually prove it other your mere assertion.
@94. stefanthedenier :
Which is NOT what I've done. Pointing out that dams have some drawbacks and negative environmental impacts is NOT the same thing. Water can be saved in plenty of ways without dams - as well as with them.
Did he? Really? Source and quotes showing that would be needed.
Moreover, even if these predictions were really made and even ifthey don't come true over time that doesn't make Svante Arrhenius some sort of liar or fraud rather than maybe merely mistaken.
Except you have rejected it constantly and defamed the scientists constantly! How is that statement compatible with your own words here :
Not forgetting :
Attacking the Met Office now? Really? Geez.
How about what NASA, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and, oh yeah, just about every serious scientific organisation on our planet?
Plus we have your classic line here :
Also you haven't acknowledged your factual errors over the maximum temperature of Antarctica or the fact that cold water actually contracts not expands and so very much more.
LOL. Again that shows you rejecting not accepting long known well established scientific reality. Have a look at this clip please :
Especially the experiment at the 1 minute 45 second mark or so.
Please watch :
Water vapour is a feedback but carbon dioxide is actually a lot more important - and water vapour cycles regularly through the atmosphere but remains relatively constant whereas CO2 has been building up in our atmosphere because of human emissions.
Because they are either outright wrong or irrelevant :
1) Outright wrong - and with extra abuse of the scientists thrown in by you.
2) Wrong. Heat is indeed "radiated" down or rather trapped by Co2 in our atmosphere warming the ground and sea and air.
3) First part wrong because levels of Co2 are now at or over 400 ppm. Also irrelevant since nobody is disputing the relative percentages & it isn't that you need a lot of it to do harm just as you only need a few drops of cyanide or deadly virus to kill. The second part is just irrelevant.
4) Heat isn't "neutralised" and your "cold vacuum" idea shows your lack of understanding of basic physics. Also you definitely do need to show proof that the troposphere can instantly double as you've extraordinarily and rather comically claimed.
5) Simply wrong. You haven't "proven" anything of the sort merely asserted it as if your say-so makes it true. It doesn't.
Looks like you are a gentleman, unfortunately my comments dissaper; so: if this message gets to you -please name a blog where Glasnost exist, or if you have a blog - so we can get to the bottom of the truth / one sided conversation is not fair to you. if you don't receive it; maybe we'll meet on some other blog. best: see you on this post, it's about Australian climate: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/5floods-droughts-we-dont-need…
P.s. did you know that: Bjorn Lomborg is actually Hagar the Horrible?
Bjorn Lomborg wrong???
Gosh, you'll be telling us the Pope's a Catholic next...
@99. stefanthedenier :
... Unfortunately, it seems you still haven't answered my actual questions to you as requested. Unless they were in a comment that disappeared in which case I guess we'll never know.
PS. Have you tried asking Greg Laden about why your comments may not be coming through and adjusting them accordingly?
…and Then There's Physics has posted Andrew Lacis' response to Steven Koonin's attempt to minimize the effects of CO2 emissions. Lacis basically repeats some points that he's made before, but this time he's also added the following about future sea level rise:
“Physicists...should also pay attention to the geological record that points to an atmospheric CO2 level of 450 ppm as being incompatible with polar ice caps, a level that is expected to be reached by the end of this century. While it may take a thousand years for the polar ice to melt, the future course is being prepared for a 70 meter rise in sea level.”
Lomborg has found a new sugar daddy.
We need a new legal paradigm - take polluters and politicians to court today on behalf of the future generations to which said polluters and politicians are beholden as a consequence of their decisions and behaviours.
And with the continual production of new evidence and new response phenomena that result from inaction, double jeopardy could be a forlorn defence.
You begin to understand what's meant by "the True Cost of doing business" and why these organizations & the individuals who run them are de facto thieves. We should not suffer such thieves to live amongst us.